In many ways, Samsung is the winner in this trial. It went from the low-tier of cell phone makers to the very top of the market (in numbers sold, not profits) on the basis of stolen IP. Now it has to pay a small fraction of the profits it has made and has also avoided the billions in development costs that were borne by Apple.

The jury sent a message, and perhaps, its conservative calculation of damages will serve to insulate the verdict from appeal.

The American patent and jury systems are the huge highlight of this case. Reaffirmed, sir!

Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.

And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.

Hah now I see the anti-Apple brigade is smearing the jury foreman for being biased and that the patent he was granted should never have been granted because of "prior art". And of course they think Sammy will win on appeal. I think it's quite disgusting to smear someone just because you don't agree with the decision they came to.

What I find hypocritical is the same people arguing these jurors couldn't possibly understand patents and patent law are the first ones to claim this guys patent shouldn't have been granted.

Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.

And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."

I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."

The implicit and rarely spoken corollary is that therefore purchasing, say, one or another Galaxy phones makes the buyer an independent minded tech whiz who stands for freedom.

All of that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, of course, as you notice that owning an Android handset puts you in with the crowd, Google is entirely closed in any area they actually make money, and that Android's vaunted "openness" devolves, in practice, to little more than customizable widgets and the opportunity to dick around with OS processes in the manner of a bored sailor working his scrimshaw.

But all of that goes into the lizard brain and expresses as "Screw Apple." And from there to the comments on every tech blog on the internet, wherein you'd imagine that Apple had publicly declared themselves to be planning forced reeducation camps and the snuffing out of joy.

But, as I say, that's actually a vocal minority. Most Android users, I'd dare to wager, are simply using the phone they were told to buy when they went to the store. On account of being so tech savvy and independent minded.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

But even after all that are Samsung going to be better off than say HTC who profited by $350 million for the 2nd calendar quarter? I think everyone else is losing money per quarter as an Android-based vendor. Did Samsung learn anything from their slavish copying that can attribute to original products going forward? Things like fit and finish or industrial design? It's looking to me that their stealing will pay off for them when you consider all variables.

Yeah, but...

I am a great believer that what goes around, comes around...

Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.

While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.

While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.

I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. I don't see how they are at a level playing field HTC, Moto, et al. now they this court case is over. I don't see their S III infringing (was that part of the case? Is is now banned?) yet I see all that effort in copying Apple having a great potential to have taught Samsung a great deal about fit and finish and industrial design that the other Android-based vendors still can't compete with. Every angle I look at this I see Samsung a being far ahead of their Android competitors and wonder if they would have been ahead if not for the anti-competive actions.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Originally Posted by woodbine
...
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.

The auto industry is a poor example here. There haven't been any original or new designs for cars since about 1934 or so.

If by "design" you mean aesthetics and appearance, then yes, there are new designs every year. If you mean design in the sense that the iPhone is a new product design, then there haven't been any "new" car designs for many decades. At least none that have caught on, or sold or been designed by any of the mainstream car companies.

The new electric cars (and the hybrids, but they are a dead end really), are pretty much the only things that could be called "new designs" and they really only replace the powerplant with a different source and are thus a long way from anything revolutionary or new.

You should read the review on androidpolice website, it fairly positive, but points out many simple faults that could have been corrected/redesigned.
The problem I feel is that the Asian culture does not have the right tools to create world design. Maybe it's something about western culture having such depth and breadth that makes our manufactures world beaters.
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.

I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. ...

Indeed. The concept of karma is very popular among "techies" in that it has connections to buddhism and is generally viewed as something to believe in that is "not religion." In fact, it's just magical thinking and closer to superstition than even regular religion is. It's pure nonsense.

If you believe in Karma, you might as well avoid black cats as well and throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it.

For instance, what is the moral fault of the dinosaurs that meant that the only possible karmic response by the universe was to wipe them out? Were they all cheating at cards for millions of years?

Great Victory for Apple , not because of damage award surely. 1 billion dollar is 15 days of Samsung's profit (or 22 days of Samsung Mobile division profit) or 8 days of Apple's. However large it may seem (unless it gets tripled, in which case it would one and half month of Samsung;s profit), it is still a slap on the wrist, probably a tighter one.

Samsung played their game, took calculated risks, and are now the most profitable handset manufacturer after Apple, their mobile division seems set to earn more than 15 billion dollar alone current year. In larger context it appears best investment they made. Spending a billion dollar and securing tens of billions of dollars of profit each year. And now they can safely move away from Apple designs ( like S3) and still be profitable. They have earned mind share and stature enough to reap in gold aleast for few years even without any breakthrough designs and products.

And that's exactly the injustice of the entire process.

Samsung came from no where to the #1 smart phone manufacturer in the world and are making billions in profits with their blatant copying being a large part of the reason for their success. As you mentioned, they have now built a position where they can stop making knock-offs (and as I've pointed out for weeks, the S3 shows that they're capable of making something that's not a slavish copy). Not only do they get to keep 95% of the ill-gotten profits, but they've now created a market position that will allow them to make many billions more in the future without being sued.

The judgment should have been at least 10 times as large.

You may be right... but the judicial system can't rule on anticipated or future issues... only actual past issues.

You, also, may be right that the S3 shows that Sammy can make something that is different enough from the current phones as not to be a slavish copy.

You are right that Sammy has gained market position, profits (and economies of scale).

So, Sammy is in an excellent position going forward -- some might say "sitting in the catbird seat".

Even more remarkable, Sammy has gained this position by copying Apple (and others) and creating or inventing little, or nothing, itself -- saving precious time and dollars in the process.

But, now the rules have changed... Sammy can't copy without fear of rapid injunctive relief on any new "copy". Sammy must, at least, spend the time and dollars to come up with a "non-slavish" copy of any incremental improvements by the competition.

But, what will happen when the next disruptive device (like the iPhone or iPad) arrives from Apple or some other competitor?

likely, it will not come from Sammy -- as creative [disruptive] invention is not in their DNA

Sammy will not be able to rapidly bring to market a "non-slavish" copy

if Sammy copies as in the past, the victim will, likely, get immediate injunctive relief

So, here Sammy sits with all this market capability and manufacturing capacity -- with nothing to use them for... they can only continue marketing and manufacturing today'a "non-slavish" copies.

For an entity that grows powerful by copying or stealing -- what happens when there is nothing left to copy or steal (or no practical way to do so)?

This may seem a little idealistic, but I believe that within the seeds of the success of companies like Sammy and Googy -- lies the seeds of their destruction, comeuppance, or at the very least the limit of their future growth.

Some of the reasons I am long on AAPL is that they are ethical, focused, creative and driven by excellence. They will not release a garbage product and are not afraid to disrupt their own successes.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.

And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."

I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."

The implicit and rarely spoken corollary is that therefore purchasing, say, one or another Galaxy phones makes the buyer an independent minded tech whiz who stands for freedom.

All of that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, of course, as you notice that owning an Android handset puts you in with the crowd, Google is entirely closed in any area they actually make money, and that Android's vaunted "openness" devolves, in practice, to little more than customizable widgets and the opportunity to dick around with OS processes in the manner of a bored sailor working his scrimshaw.

But all of that goes into the lizard brain and expresses as "Screw Apple." And from there to the comments on every tech blog on the internet, wherein you'd imagine that Apple had publicly declared themselves to be planning forced reeducation camps and the snuffing out of joy.

But, as I say, that's actually a vocal minority. Most Android users, I'd dare to wager, are simply using the phone they were told to buy when they went to the store. On account of being so tech savvy and independent minded.

LOL!

Very well written (colorful) post and an enjoyable read.

Kinda' like a Seinfield skit.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."

I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."

I call this vocal minority the techblogistas. And they're very vocal. I was in the Apple section of a computer store and overheard some loud person telling the hapless salesperson how he liked Apple products but hated Apple the company. Reminds me of what happens daily on these forums: people show up here so they can vent how much they hate Apple and how much they hate fanboys.

And part of that is to claim that these are toys for the elite. This coming from people who get hard-ons for "l33t specs" is ironic, no?

Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.

While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.

I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. I don't see how they are at a level playing field HTC, Moto, et al. now they this court case is over. I don't see their S III infringing (was that part of the case? Is is now banned?) yet I see all that effort in copying Apple having a great potential to have taught Samsung a great deal about fit and finish and industrial design that the other Android-based vendors still can't compete with. Every angle I look at this I see Samsung a being far ahead of their Android competitors and wonder if they would have been ahead if not for the anti-competive actions.

Ahh... but you are limiting the playing field and karma to the existing world as we know it.

It was not too long ago when Microsoft ruled the roost in computer OS, productivity apps, and had a large success in mobile phones. I remember:

The mobile world changed in 2007. The PC world changed in 2010. When/what will be the next world change?

More succinctly, to what advantage is the marketing and manufacturing capability for buggy whips -- when the world is buying automobile cranks? Sammy has gained the pre-eminant position for today's buggy whips -- but lack the infrastructure for tomorrow's automobile cranks.

If I were to guess (SWAG, really), I would say the next world change is social* experience sharing in real-time or near real-time. I can't think of a good name for it, can't really describe it... but, like porn, I'll know it when I see it.

* I did not highlight "social" although I believe it will be the driving factor for consumers -- and that, in turn, will drive acceptance in enterprise for additional, non-social uses.

Watching TV in the family room is so passé -- as are posting to blogs or forums like AI; chatting or texting...

Come to think of it, TV as a one-to-many device is passé -- a tablet as a many-to-many device is a big part of experience sharing in real-time or near real-time. And, the tablet, as a personal TV, will largely cause the large screen to become a less-used niche product.

Edit: And tablets. with advanced cell radios, will break down the voice/messaging/data price structure of the telcos/cablecos -- it's all data, all the time!

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/26/12 at 11:00am

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Didn't Samsung's lawyers have jury consultants? Most people can be willing to forgive a slight whiff of greed if the company is otherwise has a good reputation. But nobody likes companies where it's beyond doubt that they're being greedy bastards. So why did Samsung bring this up when it should have been obvious to them that Intel's contract is an obvious defense, and that would prove that Samsung is trying to double-dip against Apple? That's like giving any jury that isn't paid Samsung shills a reason to hate them.

Because samsung like motorola later came back to intel (qualcomm with motorola) and told them that they were altering there legal contract with intel and excluding apple only from the contract. So in fact samsung was being a greedy bastard. They were trying to stifle competition by changing an already in-force contract. So that they could sue apple for infringement for those standards essential patents which are FRAND. Setting apple up to be sued ahead of time. Intel in samsungs case said no that its a legal contract and you can't do that. Qualcomm also said the same thing to motorola. The fact that samsung wanted 2.4% of all of the revenue from the full iDevice price for there royalties is ridiculous. The Jury in this case saw them for the anticompettative greedy lying bastards that they really are, and handed them there just deserts.

Indeed. The concept of karma is very popular among "techies" in that it has connections to buddhism and is generally viewed as something to believe in that is "not religion." In fact, it's just magical thinking and closer to superstition than even regular religion is. It's pure nonsense.

If you believe in Karma, you might as well avoid black cats as well and throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it.

For instance, what is the moral fault of the dinosaurs that meant that the only possible karmic response by the universe was to wipe them out? Were they all cheating at cards for millions of years?

Quite right.

There is NO natural justice.

There is however law enforced justice - Which Samsung shall learn from America (if nowhere else).

It's funny, before the verdict, I was criticising the jury system, and imagining 'ordinary' people would not understand the complexities of the case.

After two days of reading forum and news website posts, it seems they were an oasis of rational and right thinking, in a desert of stupidity and ignorance.

Did anyone catch Engadget's editorial on the verdict ?

Shocking opinions from adult professionals. (I would have expected better from them).

I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.

Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.

It was after the first day of deliberations, and not the first day of trial.

Ilagan told CNET the jury was convinced of Samsung's guilt after only one day of deliberations, noting that the seemingly fast verdict was carefully decided after weighing evidence presented by both parties.

We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."

Foreman Hogan echoed the juror's sentiment, telling Reuters that video testimony from Samsung officials made it "absolutely" clear that the company willfully infringed on Apple's trade dress. He went on to say Apple's arguments for the protection of intellectual property factored largely into the jury's decision.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If they were then they would not have the sales and profits they have had. People weren't buying Samsung's devices because the jury hadn't yet deliberated. They bought them for a multitude of reasons that are irrelevant to any bad press that Samsung has had for copying Apple's designs for years, and other vendors before that. This court case will not affect that in a meaningful way.

That's probably wrong. Most of their sales are likely taking place in China and India (and lower-income richer countries) where people still don't have the iPhone as a major choice in all key carriers. In places like the US, Samsung's smartphone share is nowhere near their global share. Moreover, even there, Apple didn't even get to Verizon and Sprint until a couple of years ago, by which time, people had bought into non-Apple smartphones. A lot of their current share is simply inertial and/or contract-bound.

Let's see in a couple of years. The real test -- as I've said many times before in this forum -- will be when the iPhone makes it to China Mobile. I am willing to bet that Samsung's mobile division will be report its first quarterly loss.

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

Given the certitude in the jury, it's interesting that Judge Koh, on the other hand, was framing this as an equally risky proposition for both sides, in urging Apple to settle.
Either she was clueless in reading the jury, or...... (hypothesis?)
Anyway, I am predicting that she does not treble damages nor go with the injunction. I hope I am wrong.

All judges encourage parties to settle. I heard a judge tell both parties one time that, if they choose not to settle then there was a good chance neither side would be happy with the final outcome. This lack of satisfaction is often the definition of a fair outcome.

Settlements allow a final resolution of a case to the satisfaction of both parties. Failure to settle usually means the case will live on for years.

I don't think your prediction about damages or injunctions is going to turn out to be correct. The jury actually held that the infringement was willful. It's hard to see how Judge Koh, without deciding that this factual finding is not supported by the evidence, could not rule according to the jury's findings.

The auto industry is a poor example here. There haven't been any original or new designs for cars since about 1934 or so.

If by "design" you mean aesthetics and appearance, then yes, there are new designs every year. If you mean design in the sense that the iPhone is a new product design, then there haven't been any "new" car designs for many decades. At least none that have caught on, or sold or been designed by any of the mainstream car companies.

The new electric cars (and the hybrids, but they are a dead end really), are pretty much the only things that could be called "new designs" and they really only replace the powerplant with a different source and are thus a long way from anything revolutionary or new.

You're suggesting that a revolutionary car will not require a powerplant? Exactly how would the car move? Fairy magic?

Originally Posted by anonimo
Hahaha..... I don't understand how you Apple fans still using an Iphone. Why dont you open your eyes and at least check comparations on youtube. Here it is one that you should see:

Why should we give a frick about any of this? What's your reason for being here if you don't like Apple products?

Originally Posted by focher
You're suggesting that a revolutionary car will not require a powerplant? Exactly how would the car move? Fairy magic?

Theoretically we should be able to make solar panels efficient enough to power a car while it's in use.

Let's not disrespect the hard work other companies and individuals are doing (including Samsung) to make the remaining parts of all these magical devices possible. The iPhone for example does use some innovative components from Samsung.

I agree with you fully that competition is good and forcing companies to innovate brings us these wonderful devices we have and should accelerate the advances that make this industry so interesting to follow. In this respect, this verdict is good for the industry. However I have a feeling that there be dangers in this verdict too. Time will tell. Makes life even more interesting....

In all of these areas, Apple has been a huge innovator as well. For example:

"The company was founded as Advanced RISC Machines, ARM, a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology."

Apple has been at the forefront of developing codecs, processors, network technology and other components used in the high tech industry. Your post reads as if Apple is a simple consumer of other companies technology and that is far far from the truth.

Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.

I expect that you'll hear announcements of licensing deals in the next few weeks. Apple has indicated that they're willing to license some of their technology, just not the appearance. With this convincing win, Apple will have much more leverage to go after the others - and many of them will be willing to license rather than fight in court now that there's a legal precedent.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

A Made in China and a Made in South Korea products are the same...they are all cheap imitations, counterfeits or knock-offs!

The only difference is that, a Made in China knock-off product retains the original brand name (e.g. original Prada bag Made in Paris has a counterpart cheap, knock-off Prada bag that is Made in China), whereas a Made in South Korea imitation/knock-off/counterfeit product is rebranded as a Samsung...or a Kia....or a Hyundai....etc., etc., etc.!!

in other words: SOUTH KOREA IS A PROFESSIONAL PLAGIARIST!

Edited by MJ4Ev3r - 8/27/12 at 3:58pm

Quote:

My job is NOT to be easy on people. My job is to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even BETTER.

Given the certitude in the jury, it's interesting that Judge Koh, on the other hand, was framing this as an equally risky proposition for both sides, in urging Apple to settle.
Either she was clueless in reading the jury, or...... (hypothesis?)
Anyway, I am predicting that she does not treble damages nor go with the injunction. I hope I am wrong.

She was correct. It was very risky for both sides. I attended a session on patent law by Cooper Woodring (a well regarded patent expert) at an IDSA national conference a few years ago. And he contended that, especially with design patents, juries were very unpredictable. He presented an example to the attendees (all of them in the design profession, so not exactly ignorant) and then had them vote on it. The result was a very split response to what he considered a very clear case, and an illustration of his contention.

I expect that you'll hear announcements of licensing deals in the next few weeks. Apple has indicated that they're willing to license some of their technology, just not the appearance. With this convincing win, Apple will have much more leverage to go after the others - and many of them will be willing to license rather than fight in court now that there's a legal precedent.

As long as they're willing to license, then that will be good for consumers. More choice, more competition, more innovation.

If Jobs was still around, I'm not so sure that would be the case. You know, the whole thermalnuclear thing.

i just don't want any monopolies: whether that be MS, Intel, or Apple.

PS: Apple needs to turn up the OSX heat with the trainwreck coming called Win8.